More on Skirts

[FlamingZword]

This is all silly nonsense

If you are going to follow the law from Deuteronomy then you have to follow it all, not just one single verse you happen to like.

If Deuteronomy 22:5 is to be followed so is also the rest of Deuteronomy from 22:6 to 22:30, that includes such things as

8 When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof

9 Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard;

11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.

12 Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.

22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver

Of course we also need to go on to Deuteronomy chapter 23 all the way to chapter 34, and of course let us not forget from chapter 1 to chapter 21

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Pants on females started after WWII.

Hey I have full arm tattoos, and there are places in Japan where I wouldn't be allowed to enter. Not because of any religious prohibition but because criminals only got tattooed. There was a time when everyone would of been shocked to see pants on a woman. Now, we have bigger fish to fry. Sadly when we start posting about some UPC preacher's book, we aren't discussing Bible. But just looking back on yesteryear. When little Jimmy got beat up by the mean Ultra conservative Pentecostal kid for his Sheaves for Christ money. D. K. Bernard? Aren't we only preaching to a very small group, when we name him as his book? A group made up of people licking each other's Ecclesiastical wounds? All reminiscing about the old times when they were in their abusive Pentecostal cults? Hugging the their Epistles of David Wasmundt, and kissing their Icons of Thomas Fudge.

Maybe it's me?

If I left a movement I sure wouldn't be hanging around Social Media looking for someone to understand my pain. Especially if I supposedly moved on to some greater revelation concerning religion.

Whatever.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

This is all silly nonsense

If you are going to follow the law from Deuteronomy then you have to follow it all, not just one single verse you happen to like.

If Deuteronomy 22:5 is to be followed so is also the rest of Deuteronomy from 22:6 to 22:30, that includes such things as

8 When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof

9 Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard;

11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.

12 Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.

22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver

Of course we also need to go on to Deuteronomy chapter 23 all the way to chapter 34, and of course let us not forget from chapter 1 to chapter 21

FlamingZ, are you trying prove that God doesn't care about crossdressing?

Your argument and defense that men can crossdress and change their name to Caitlin is an old one.

We were having one of our open Bible studies down in the city by the bus station. When a feisty young man was using your argument to disprove that Deuteronomy 22:5 was even applicable to anyone today. Before I could even open my mouth to offer some explanations. Two young women piped up. Both were fully tattooed, one with a huge piercing through her septum.

They were calm, they were firm with their questions, and refutations. They just wanted the (now heated) young man to explain if all that stuff was cool back then, and God condoned it. Then God condoned the rape of virgins? At this point the crowd became bigger, and you could imagine who had the floor. As my sorry young friend now turned his refutation of Deuteronomy 22:5 into a circus trainwreck defending a position he had no clue on how to defend.

When I was finally allowed to step into the conversation. I explained how Deuteronomy is another law book in the Bible. The verse in question was mostly about testimony, and a death penalty, I led everyone (the group was huge at this point, because everyone gathered around) through the context of what is being said in the verses. The lawyers of the law "Moses" is dealing with a situation where taking married tribal virgins was a capital offense and worthy of capital punishment. A man who had sexual relations with a betrothed tribal woman was as if he murdered his nearest brother. Yet, if a man had sexual relations with a tribal virgin under her father's roof, they are caught then he must marry her, and never be able to divorce her. Yet, one of the factors is the "crying out." Because while us Americans believe it means to yell, shout, Freddy Kruger screams of horror. What was happening is that she was screaming that she was betrothed, a virgin. They next one who is taken, lain with, and discovered was one who never said anything. No crying out, no announcing status of betrovel.

But the Bible is clear to point out that in one case it is death. In the other it is a tribal marriage without separation. One individual asked couldn't they move. No, for the one reason these people were all moving together within their tribes. Everyone was accountable, everyone was communal. Murder of your next door neighbor was actually your nearest brother. The street Bible study went on for a while as we hashed it all out. People left with a better view on what Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers (had to bring up Numbers 30 to husband/father authority over females in the home) had to say about tribal life. Also how God isn't into Gender blending in attire, and behavior.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

FlamingZ, are you trying prove that God doesn't care about crossdressing?

Your argument and defense that men can crossdress and change their name to Caitlin is an old one.

We were having one of our open Bible studies down in the city by the bus station. When a feisty young man was using your argument to disprove that Deuteronomy 22:5 was even applicable to anyone today. Before I could even open my mouth to offer some explanations. Two young women piped up. Both were fully tattooed, one with a huge piercing through her septum.

They were calm, they were firm with their questions, and refutations. They just wanted the (now heated) young man to explain if all that stuff was cool back then, and God condoned it. Then God condoned the rape of virgins? At this point the crowd became bigger, and you could imagine who had the floor. As my sorry young friend now turned his refutation of Deuteronomy 22:5 into a circus trainwreck defending a position he had no clue on how to defend.

When I was finally allowed to step into the conversation. I explained how Deuteronomy is another law book in the Bible. The verse in question was mostly about testimony, and a death penalty, I led everyone (the group was huge at this point, because everyone gathered around) through the context of what is being said in the verses. The lawyers of the law "Moses" is dealing with a situation where taking married tribal virgins was a capital offense and worthy of capital punishment. A man who had sexual relations with a betrothed tribal woman was as if he murdered his nearest brother. Yet, if a man had sexual relations with a tribal virgin under her father's roof, they are caught then he must marry her, and never be able to divorce her. Yet, one of the factors is the "crying out." Because while us Americans believe it means to yell, shout, Freddy Kruger screams of horror. What was happening is that she was screaming that she was betrothed, a virgin. They next one who is taken, lain with, and discovered was one who never said anything. No crying out, no announcing status of betrovel.

But the Bible is clear to point out that in one case it is death. In the other it is a tribal marriage without separation. One individual asked couldn't they move. No, for the one reason these people were all moving together within their tribes. Everyone was accountable, everyone was communal. Murder of your next door neighbor was actually your nearest brother. The street Bible study went on for a while as we hashed it all out. People left with a better view on what Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers (had to bring up Numbers 30 to husband/father authority over females in the home) had to say about tribal life. Also how God isn't into Gender blending in attire, and behavior.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

FlamingZ, are you trying prove that God doesn't care about crossdressing?

Your argument and defense that men can crossdress and change their name to Caitlin is an old one.

We were having one of our open Bible studies down in the city by the bus station. When a feisty young man was using your argument to disprove that Deuteronomy 22:5 was even applicable to anyone today. Before I could even open my mouth to offer some explanations. Two young women piped up. Both were fully tattooed, one with a huge piercing through her septum.

They were calm, they were firm with their questions, and refutations. They just wanted the (now heated) young man to explain if all that stuff was cool back then, and God condoned it. Then God condoned the rape of virgins? At this point the crowd became bigger, and you could imagine who had the floor. As my sorry young friend now turned his refutation of Deuteronomy 22:5 into a circus trainwreck defending a position he had no clue on how to defend.

When I was finally allowed to step into the conversation. I explained how Deuteronomy is another law book in the Bible. The verse in question was mostly about testimony, and a death penalty, I led everyone (the group was huge at this point, because everyone gathered around) through the context of what is being said in the verses. The lawyers of the law "Moses" is dealing with a situation where taking married tribal virgins was a capital offense and worthy of capital punishment. A man who had sexual relations with a betrothed tribal woman was as if he murdered his nearest brother. Yet, if a man had sexual relations with a tribal virgin under her father's roof, they are caught then he must marry her, and never be able to divorce her. Yet, one of the factors is the "crying out." Because while us Americans believe it means to yell, shout, Freddy Kruger screams of horror. What was happening is that she was screaming that she was betrothed, a virgin. They next one who is taken, lain with, and discovered was one who never said anything. No crying out, no announcing status of betrovel.

But the Bible is clear to point out that in one case it is death. In the other it is a tribal marriage without separation. One individual asked couldn't they move. No, for the one reason these people were all moving together within their tribes. Everyone was accountable, everyone was communal. Murder of your next door neighbor was actually your nearest brother. The street Bible study went on for a while as we hashed it all out. People left with a better view on what Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers (had to bring up Numbers 30 to husband/father authority over females in the home) had to say about tribal life. Also how God isn't into Gender blending in attire, and behavior.

Dude that's pretty amazing. Love to pick your brain one day.....Once I come up with some intelligent questions lol

[Amanah]

I would so want to be on a street ministry team with Bro EB.

[Evang.Benincasa]

People around the United States are just the rank and file. Even if they're just the regular Sunday Morningists or Easter/Xmas/Funeral Churchians. Give me them, give me those guys and gals. The ILGs and the Emma Turfbuilders need no physician. Which is so ironic, because they are really the same person. They are both religious, they both believe someone else got it all wrong, and they are convinced they are the one to straighten us out. Please, I don't want anyone to get me wrong, ILG is a human being who is just like me. She has a life outside this forum. She holds convictions of right and wrong. She is my sister, she isn't a devil, she may of had the same experiences in Pennycost we all of had, but we all responded differently.

People who you meet when having Bible studies out around a city are very interesting. They are from all sorts of backgrounds and religions, ideologies, mythologies. Our world is changing quickly. People are trying to make ends meet, suffering from having to break little rocks into big rocks. Teens who are as lost as a baked potato.Listen they really don't care about a book written by Brother Bernard, or my ability to refute or prove that book.

They see me reading a Bible, not material from Word Aflame Press.

They ask about what I'm reading, and it isn't Watchtower.

They sit down as I'm teaching the scriptures to the group, and other sit down. People start to ask questions. Individuals pipe up and refute, argue, cry, laugh. Some have gotten hornet fire angry, then cry, then laugh, then get the picture. 4,000 years ago some joker on a camel had a female figure out he was a guy? So she covered herself with her Bronze Age hoodie? But it doesn't take Joe Smith's peep stone to understand Deuteronomy 22:5.

[LOVE JESUS]

We were having one of our open Bible studies down in the city by the bus station. When a feisty young man was using your argument to disprove that Deuteronomy 22:5 was even applicable to anyone today. Before I could even open my mouth to offer some explanations. Two young women piped up. Both were fully tattooed, one with a huge piercing through her septum.

Am I reading this correctly that this man was in a Bible study down town and was discussing Deut. 22:5? That would be like trying to scale a fish before it was caught. I would think street preaching would be about preaching about the love of God and his mercy and trying to get people saved - not about how to dress. My My.. Pathetic

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by LOVE JESUS

Am I reading this correctly that this man was in a Bible study down town and was discussing Deut. 22:5? That would be like trying to scale a fish before it was caught. I would think street preaching would be about preaching about the love of God and his mercy and trying to get people saved - not about how to dress. My My.. Pathetic

No, no one was giving a Bible study on Deut. 22:5. My fault, seeing I didn't give every single detail of what led up to questions, or situation. Just started from the point which I was dealing with here. But for you full of love critics who judge from the sidelines. I will tell you what led up to the young Calvary Chapelist wanting to save the day. He brought up Deuteronomy 22:5 because he noticed how some of the ladies were dressed. When he focused in a young sister who was sitting between the two tattooed women. The two tattooed girls turned to look at the young sister who was being zoned in on. They wanted to see her reply, but the young defender of his faith didn't wait, he dropped shields and fired full photon torpedos, the young sister was bewildered, and it showed. It wasn't that she couldn't give a clear intelligent answer, she most certainly was able, but that she wasn't allowed. The one tattooed girl at seeing this, her eyes rolled over white, she and her friend then calmly launched their questions. The young man with "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it!, " shirt, started to sink, his shields were greatly damaged, Scotty couldn't get him anymore power, and the ship was breaking up. As the two tattooed females gently circled in for the kill. That's when I took my chance to explain my thoughts on the subject. Also to bring the Bible study back down to earth. I'm not into allowing a Bible study to become Gladiator school.

[Scott Pitta]

The Council of Jerusalem decided the fate of the relationship between believers and the Law of Moses.

As usual, De. 22:5 did not merit the attention of anyone there.